Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

European monitoring of Belgian and French penal and prison policies

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Case studies of prison policy in France and Belgium contrast sharply. Following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECHR‘) against France for the lack of healthcare for prisoners, the lack of suicide-prevention measures and generally poor conditions of detention, and the integration of ECHR case-law into French law by the ‘Council of State‘ (France’s highest administrative court), France has developed a policy for suicide prevention in custody, partially renovated its prisons and implemented major reform of its medical and psychiatric care of prisoners. The ECHR’s judgments were influenced by complaints made by very active French human-rights pressure groups to the ECHR. The French situation is therefore characterised by interactions between the European and national regulatory bodies, in contrast to the situation in Belgium, where the Conseil d’état has exerted only limited control over Belgian prisons, as it has, to date, not incorpated ECHR case-law into Belgian law [1]. In addition, the absence of effective domestic regulation of prisons in Belgium can be explained by the Belgian government’s failure to ratify the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (‘OPCAT‘) and to establish an independent body to prevent torture. This means that the only effective regulation of Belgian prisons is by the United Nations and the Council of Europe, in particular the ECHR, the Committee of Ministers and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (‘CPT‘), which have extended the scope of their supervision to cover suicide prevention, physical and mental healthcare, overcrowding and domestic legal remedies for prisoners. In response, Belgium has only occasionally complied with ECHR case-law, especially in the field of domestic legal remedies available to prisoners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The legal supervivion refers to the monitoring of national prison policies provided for by the CoE bodies and the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  2. ECHR, 6 December 2016, W.D. c. Belgique, no 73548/13; ECHR, 25 November 2014, Vasilescu v. Belgium, n° 64,682/12; ECHR, 17 November 2015, Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no. 47687/13;

  3. To this end, thirty appeals from prisoners in several French prisons have thus been brought before the European Court in the context of a campaign initiated by OIP-SF and communicated to the French government. See ECtHR, 5th Section, Communication of 11 February 2016, J.M.B. v. France and 9 other applications, No. 9671/15 et seq.; F.R. v. France and 3 other applications, No. 12792/15 et seq.

  4. See http://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/annual-reports/

  5. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. (98)7 Concerning the Ethical and Organisational Aspects of Health Care in Prison (8 April 1998), §58.

  6. Ibid.

  7. ECHR, 3 April 2001, Keenan v. United Kingdom, n° 27,229/95, § 88.

  8. Ibid.

  9. ECHR, 6 December 2011, De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium, n° 8595/06, §78.

  10. Ibid.

  11. ECHR, 4 February 2016, Isenc v. France, n° 58,828/13.

  12. See, for instance, ECHR, 14 March 2002, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. United Kingdom?, §62 and ECHR, 4 February 2016, Isenc v. France, n° 58,828/13.

  13. Action Plan - Communication from Belgium concerning the case of De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium (Application n° 8595/06)- DH-DD(2012)1038F, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 8 November 2012.

  14. Revised action report, Communication from Belgium concerning the case of De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium (Application No. 8595/06), DH-DD(2015)336, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 25 March 2015, p. 2.

  15. Ibid., p. 4.

  16. Ibid., p. 3.

  17. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 3 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, pp. 36–37.

  18. Report from the Observatoire International des Prison - Belgian Section 2016, Brussels, pp. 156–158, available at http://oipbelgique.be/fr/?page_id=23

  19. ECHR, 16 October 2008, Renolde v. France, n° 5608/05.

  20. ECHR, 4 February 2016, Isenc v. France, n° 58,828/13.

  21. ECHR, 19 October 2012, Ketreb v. France, n° 38,447/09.

  22. Ibid.

  23. Article 1 of the Arrêté of 9 June 2016 related to the personal data management and videoprotection of prison celles, JUSK1615877A.

  24. Ibid.

  25. CPT report on its visit to France from 15 to 27 November 2015, Strasbourg, 7 April 2017, p. 37.

  26. For such institutional risk factors, see [16]

  27. Ibid.

  28. Ibid.

  29. CPT report on its visit to France from 15 to 27 November 2015, Strasbourg, 7 April 2017, pp. 37–44; CPT Report on its visit to France from 28 November to 10 December 2010, Strasbourg, 19 April 2012, pp. 44–48; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 4 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, pp. 35–38.

  30. Ibid. and CPT Report on its visit to France from 27 September to 9 October 2006, Strasbourg, 10 December 2007, pp. 77–85 and pp. 44–48; CPT Report on its visit to France from 14 to 26 May 2000, Strasbourg, 19 July 2001 pp. 44–50; CPT report on its visit to France from 27 October to 8 November 1991, Strasbourg, 19 January 1993, pp. 60–66; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 4 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, pp. 35–38; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 23 to 27 April 2012, Strasbourg, 13 December 2012, pp.15–18 and pp.25–26; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 28 September to 7 October 2009, Strasbourg, 23 July 2010, pp. 52–55; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 17 to 27 April 2005, Strasbourg, 20 April 2006, p.40, and pp.43–45; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 31 August to 12 September 1997, Strasbourg, 18 June 1998, pp.54–61; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 14 to 23 November 1993, Strasbourg, 14 October 1994, pp.56–67.

  31. Recommendation 98(7) of the Committee of Ministers concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of healthcare in prison.

  32. Rule 40.1 of the European Prison Rules.

  33. Recommendation (2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the EPR Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006 at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

  34. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 3 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, p. 35.

  35. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 14 to 23 November 1993, Strasbourg, 14 October 1994, pp.62–66.

  36. Ibid.

  37. Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights- Visit to Belgium, 15–19 December 2008 (ref. CommDH (2009) p.14.

  38. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 3 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, p. 43.

  39. United Nations Human Rights Committee. Consideration of the report submitted by Belgium under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Draft concluding observations, November 2010).

  40. ECHR, 10 January 2013, Claes v. Belgium; ECHR, 6 December 2011, De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium; ECHR, 10 January 2013, Duffort v. Belgium; ECHR, 10 April 2013, Sweenen v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Saadouni v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Gelaude v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Lankaster v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Van Meroye v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Plaisier v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Oukili v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Moreels v. Belgium; ECHR, 9 January 2014, Caryn v. Belgium.

  41. ECHR, 10 January 2013, Claes v. Belgium, n°43,418/09, §98.

  42. ECHR, 9 January 2014, Saadouni v. Belgium, §56 and 61.

  43. ECHR, 10 January 2013, Claes v. Belgium, n°43,418/09, §98.

  44. Ibid.

  45. Internment Act of 5 May 2014 (n° 2,014,009,316), published in the Moniteur Belge (official journal) 9 July 2014.

  46. Action Plan (with additional documents) - Communication from Belgium concerning the L.B. (L.B/, Claes, Swennen and Dufoort cases) grouped cases v. Belgium (application n° 22,831/08), DH-DD(2014)208F, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 11 February 2014.

  47. Ibid., p. 5.

  48. ECHR, 6 December 2016, W.D. c. Belgique, no 73548/13.

  49. Ibid., §164–165.

  50. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 3 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, pp. 39–43; UN Human Rights Committee, CAT/C/BEL/3, 3 January 2014.

  51. Ibid., §112 and 169.

  52. Ibid. §170.

  53. ECHR, 14 November 2002, Vincent and Mouisel v. France, n° 67,263/01.

  54. Penal Procedure Code, Art. 721–1. One might argue, however, that the main influence was a Senate report of 2000, rather than European case-law. French Senate. Les conditions de detention dans les établissements pénitentiaires en France. Une honte pour la République. Inquiry Committee led by J.-J. Hyest and P.-G. Cabanel. Report n° 449, June 29, 2000.

  55. Law of 15 August 2014.

  56. Public Health Code, Art. L. 3214–1

  57. Public Health Code, Art. L3222–3

  58. Penal Procedure Code, Art. 706–53-13 s

  59. Law of January 18, 1994.

  60. ECHR, 26 May 2011, Duval v. France, n° 19,868/08.

  61. ECHR 24 October 2006, Vincent v. France, n° 6253/03

  62. This unfortunately seems to be the norm in France. See Observatoire international des prisons, Rapport d’activité 2010, Paris, and Administrative Court of Orléans, 4 October 2007, case no 070001.

  63. ECHR, 19 February 2015, Helal v. France, n° 10,401/12.

  64. Administrative Court of Orléans, 4 October. 2007, no 070001, AJ pénal 2008. 101, obs. M. Herzog-Evans

  65. CoE, White paper paper on prison overcrowding, PC-CP (2015) 6 rév 7; ECtHR, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, 8 January 2013, No 43517/09.

  66. ECHR, Vasilescu v. Belgium, 25 November 2014, n° 64,682/12.

  67. ECHR, 8 January 2013, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, n°s 43517/09, 46,882/09, 55,400/09, 57,875/09, 61,535/09, 35,315/10, 37,818/1043517/09, 46,882/09, 55,400/09, 57,875/09, 61,535/09, 35,315/10, and 37,818/10.

  68. ECHR, 5th Section, Communication of 11 February 2016, J.M.B. v. France and 9 other applications, No. 9671/15 et seq.; F.R. v. France and 3 other applications, No. 12792/15 et seq.

  69. ECHR, 17 November 2015, Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no. 47687/13.

  70. ECHR, 25 November 2014, Vasilescu v. Belgium, n° 64,682/12.

  71. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 24 September to 3 October 2013, Strasbourg, 31 March 2016, pp. 31–34; CPT report on its visit to Belgium from from 23 to 27 April 2012, Strasbourg, 13 December 2012.

  72. Committee of Ministers, Action Plan communicated by Belgium, DH-DD(2016)153, 12 February 2016, p.4.

  73. Ibid.

  74. Ibid., p.5.

  75. Ibid., p.6

  76. CPT report on its visit to Belgium from 7 to 9 May, Strasbourg, 18 November 2016, pp. 7–9; .

  77. Ministry of Justice. Prison Services (2016) Séries statistiques1 July 2016. Sous-direction des personnes placées sous main de justice.

  78. Penal Procedure Code, Art. 716

  79. CPT report on its visit to France from 15 to 27 November 2015, Strasbourg, 7 April 2017, p. 23.

  80. ECHR, 25 April 2013, Canali v. France, n° 40,119/09. See also [23].

  81. Comp. with [26].

  82. Ministry of Justice. Prison Services. Séries statistiques des personnes placées sous main de justice. 1980–2014. Sous-direction des personnes placées sous main de justice. Bureau des études et de la prospective, spe. p.20.

  83. Ministry of Justice. Prison Services. Séries statistiques des personnes placées sous main de justice. 1980–2014. Sous-direction des personnes placées sous main de justice. Bureau des études et de la prospective, spe. p. 45

  84. Ibid, p. 45.

  85. Ibid, p. 45.

  86. comp. e.g. with Council of Europe SPACE 1 Survey 2013–15 december 2014

  87. [33]. And for the United- States: [34].

  88. Europe 1. Urvoas: Le ministère de la Justice n’a plus les moyens de payer ses factures, April 2, 2016. Available at: http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Justice/Urvoas-Le-ministere-de-la-Justice-n-a-plus-les-moyens-de-payer-ses-factures-779427 [Accessed 7th December 2016].

  89. [9], and, for an update: [35].

  90. See https://oip.org/

  91. See https://twitter.com/associationa3d

  92. ECtHR, Torreggiani and others v. Italy, 8 January 2013, nos 43,517/09, 46,882/09, 55,400/09, 57,875/09, 61,535/09, 35,315/10 et 37,818/10, § 50; Vasilescu v. Belgium, 25 November 2014, no 64682/12, § 75; Bamouhammad v. Belgium, 17 November 2015, no 47687/13, §§ 165–166.

  93. ECHR 9 January 2014, Van Meroye v. Belgium, § 104–109.

  94. ECHR, 17 November 2015, Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no 47687/13

  95. ECHR, 6 December 2016, W.D. v. Belgium, no 73548/13.

  96. Ibid.

  97. Ibid.

  98. Ibid.

  99. http://www.oipbelgique.be/

  100. http://www.oip.org/

  101. http://www.liguedh.be/

  102. http://www.mensenrechten.be/

  103. On the very complex issue of balancing due process, prisoner agency, rehabilitation and re-entry, whilst releasing enough inmates see: [20].

  104. ECHR 20 January 2011, Payet v. France, no 19606/08; ECHR 3 November 2011, Cocaign v. France, no 32010/07; ECHR 10 November 2011, Pathey v. France, no 48337/09

  105. Law n° 2016–731 of 3 June 2016 on organised crime and terrorism; Law n° 2016–987 of 21 July 2016 prolonging the state of emergency and reinforcing the fight against terrorism.

References

  1. Cliquennois, G., Cartuvyels, Y., & Champetier, B. (2014). Le contrôle judiciaire européen de la prison : les droits de l’homme au fondement d’un panoptisme inversé ? Déviance et Société, 38(4), 491–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jacobs, J.B. (1997) The prisoners’ rights movement and its impact. In Marquart, J.W. and Sorensen, J.R. (Eds.), Correctional contexts. Contemporary and classical readings. Los Angeles: Roxbury, pp. 231–247.

  3. Belbot, B. (1997). Prisoner classification litigation. In J. W. Marquart & J. R. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional contexts, contemporary and classical readings (pp. 272–280). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crouch, B., & Marquart, J. (1997). Resolving the paradox of reform: Litigation, prisoner violence, and perceptions of risk. In J. W. Marquart & J. R. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional contexts, contemporary and classical readings (pp. 258–271). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Herzog-Evans, M. (2012). Droit pénitentiaire. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobs, J. B. (1997). op. cit.

  7. Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Schoenfeld, H. (2010). Mass incarceration and the paradox of prison conditions litigation. Law and Society Review, 44(3–4), 731–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Herzog-Evans, M. (2012). op. cit.

  10. Evans, M. (2002). Combating torture in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Van Zyl-Smit, D., & Snacken, S. (2009). Principles of European prison law and policy: Penology and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cliquennois, G., & Suremain, H. (2017). Monitoring penal policies in Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2010). Regulation of prison conditions. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 503–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cliquennois, G., & Champetier, B. (2013). A new risk management for prisoners in France: The emergence of a death-avoidance approach. Theoretical Criminology, 17(3), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duthe, G., & Kensey, A. (2014). Trends and risk factors for prisoner suicide in France. Population, 69(4) Available online at https://www.ined.fr/fichier/rte/General/Publications/Population/articles/2014/population_2014_4_suicide_prison_france-EN.pdf.

  16. Liebling, A. (1992). Suicides in prison. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Herzog-Evans, M. (2012). op. cit., especially Chapter 3.

  18. Cliquennois, G., & Champetier, B. (2013). op. cit.

  19. Cliquennois, G. (2010). Preventing suicide in French prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 1023–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Herzog-Evans, M. (forthcoming). Offender release and supervision: The role of courts and the use of discretion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

  21. Cartuyvels, Y., & Cliquennois, G. (2015) The punishment of mentally ill offenders in Belgium: Care as legitimacy for control. In Penal field, 12 available at http://champpenal.revues.org/9307. https://doi.org/10.4000/champpenal.9307.

  22. Lancelevée, C. (2016). Quand la prison prend soin: enquête sur les pratiques professionnelles de santé mentale en milieu carcéral en France et en Allemagne. In PhD dissertation, EHESS. Paris.

  23. Tulkens, F. (2014). Les prisons en Europe. Les développements récents de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme’. Déviance et Société 38(4), 436.

  24. Herzog-Evans, M. (2010). Loi pénitentiaire n° 2009-1436 du 24 novembre 2009 : changement de paradigme pénologique et toute puissance administrative. In Recueil Dalloz Chronique (pp. 31–38).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cholet, D. (Ed.). (2015). Les nouvelles prisons. Enquête sur le nouvel univers carcéral. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Padfield, N., Dünkel, F. & van Syl Smit, D. (eds.) (2010). Release from prison. European policy and practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

  27. Herzog-Evans, M. (2017). Droit de l’exécution des peines (5th ed.). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Herzog-Evans, M. (forthcoming). La mise en oeuvre de la liberation sous contrainte dans le Nord-Est de la France. Report to the Mission Droit et Justice.

  29. Herzog-Evans, M. (2015). France: Legal architecture, political posturing, ‘prisonbation’ and adieu social work. In G. Robinson & F. McNeill (Eds.), Community punishment. European perspective (pp. 51–71). Routledge and COST UE: Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  30. de Larminat, X. (2012). La probation en quête d’approbation. L’exécution des peines en milieu ouvert entre gestion des risques et gestion des flux. Thèse Cesdip-Université de Versailles-Saint Quentin.

  31. Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). “All hands on deck” (re)mettre le travail en partenariat au centre de la probation. Aj Pénal, 5(3), 139–144.

  32. Dubourg, E. (2015). Les services pénitentiaires d’insertion et de probation. Fondements juridiques. Evolution. Evaluation et avenir. Ph D in criminal law and criminal sciences. University of Nantes.

  33. Aebi, M., Delgrande, N., & Marguet, Y. (2015). Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems? Punishment & Society, 17(5), 575–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation; community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Council of State (Conseil d’Etat). (2014). L’administration pénitentiaire et le juge administratif. August: Dossiers Thématiques.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Herzog-Evans, M. (2015). Solitary confinement and convict segregation in French prisons. In S. Richards (Ed.), The Marion experiment: Long-term solitary Confinement and the supermax movement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scheirs, V., Beyens, K., & Snacken, S. (2015). Mixed system: Belgium. Who’s in charge? Conditional release in Belgium as a complex bifurcation practice. In M. Herzog-Evans (Ed.), Offender release and supervision: The role of courts and the use of discretion (pp. 149–164). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). Récidive et surpopulation: pas de baguette magique juridique. In Ajpénal, March: pp. 136–139.

  39. Herzog-Evans, M. (2016). Droit de l’exécution des peines (5th ed.). Paris: Dalloz. spe chapter 04.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Delbos, V. (2016). Rapport sur la mise en œuvre de la loi du 15 août 2014 relative à l’individualisation des peine et renforçant l’efficacité des sanctions pénales. Rapport au Ministre de la Justice, 21 Octobre.

  41. Haubert, B. (1988). Le Conseil d'Etat et le contentieux pénitentiaire ». In La durée et l’exécution des peines, Liège, éd. du Jeune Barreau.

  42. Cliquennois, G., Cartuvyels, Y., & Champetier, B. (2014). op. cit.

  43. Epp, C. R. (1998). The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Herzog-Evans, M. (2016). Droit de l’exécution des peines. Paris: Dalloz. especially Chapter, 4.

  45. Cliquennois, G., & Suremain, H. (2017). op. cit.

  46. Snacken, S., Beyens, K., & Beernaert, M. A. (2010). Belgium. In N. Padfield, D. van Zyl Smit, & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Release from prison. European policy and practice (pp. 70–103). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Snacken, S., & Dumortier, S. (Eds.). (2012). Resisting Punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS/University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Gaëtan Cliquennois

  2. University of Reims, Reims, France

    Martine Herzog-Evans

Authors
  1. Gaëtan Cliquennois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martine Herzog-Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaëtan Cliquennois.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cliquennois, G., Herzog-Evans, M. European monitoring of Belgian and French penal and prison policies. Crime Law Soc Change 70, 113–134 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9722-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9722-2

Search

Navigation